President Obama didn’t rule out raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 as part of a comprehensive package to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff,” during an interview with ABC News on Tuesday.

Obama told Barbara Walters that keeping younger seniors out of the health care program is “something that’s been floated” and didn’t immediately reject the idea:

“When you look at the evidence, it’s not clear that it actually saves a lot of money,” he said. “But what I’ve said is let’s look at every avenue, because what is true is we need to strengthen Social Security, we need to strengthen Medicare for future generations, the current path is not sustainable because we’ve got an aging population and health care costs are shooting up so quickly.”

Indeed, the idea — which has been floated by Republicans demanding “painful” cuts in the Medicare program — would only save the federal government a net $5.7 billion, while shifting an added $11.4 billion in health care spending to states, employers, and individuals.

A report released by the Center for American Progress on Tuesday found that if lawmakers were to raise the eligibility age to 67, as many as 5.4 million 65- and 66-year-olds would have to search for alternative sources of coverage by postponing retirement, enrolling in private insurance, or qualifying for Medicaid.

At a press conference on Tuesday organized by the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) reaffirmed that his ultimate legislative objective is to restrict all women’s access to abortion services.

Members of Texas Right to Life are currently pushing their state’s legislators to pass a “fetal pain” bill that would ban abortions after just 20 weeks — despite the fact that there’s no scientific evidence that fetuses can actually feel pain at that point. As the Huffington Post reports, Perry not only enthusiastically endorsed such a measure, but also confirmed his “goal” to continue passing restrictive legislation to limit women’s Constitutional right to choose:

To be clear, my goal, and the goal of many of those joining me here today, is to make abortion, at any stage, a thing of the past. While Roe v. Wade prevents us from taking that step, it does allow states to do some things to protect life if they can show there is a compelling state interest. I don’t think there is any issue that better fits the definition of ‘compelling state interest’ than preventing the suffering of our state’s unborn. [...]

Again, the ideal world is a world without abortion. Until then, however, we will continue to pass laws to ensure abortions are as rare as possible under existing law.

Perry does not support legal abortion access for women who have become impregnated from rape or incest, a far-right position that cost several anti-choice candidates their seats in last month’s election.

The governor has already taken significant steps toward accomplishing his goal in Texas. He has signed a bill requiring women seeking abortions to undergo a mandatory ultrasound — the same type of legislation that the Oklahoma Supreme Court recently ruled unconstitutional because it goes too far to restrict women’s right to legal abortion under Roe v. Wade — and is working hard to defund the Planned Parenthood clinics that provide reproductive services to low-income women across the state.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that 17 Democratic senators and senators-elect have joined Republicans in calling for a delay on Obamacare’s 2.3 percent surtax on most medical devices.

Device manufacturers have been trying to get the tax onto the chopping block as part of budget negotiations over the so-called “fiscal cliff,” setting up a showdown with the White House over an important Obamacare funding mechanism that proponents say will be balanced out by an influx of newly-insured, paying Americans into the health care market:

The Democrats’ support could give new momentum to the industry’s intense lobbying campaign to repeal or delay the 2.3% tax on device sales, which companies say will hurt profits and lead to U.S. job losses. However, they face a battle because other Democrats, as well as the White House, oppose any postponement.

“It’s already law; they’re not going to budge on that,” said Bart Stupak, the former Democratic congressman who is now an attorney at Washington law firm Venable LLP.

The tax, part of the health-care overhaul bill passed in 2010, is expected to generate $30 billion over the next 10 years to help pay for expanded health insurance. Along with the device industry, the law also placed new taxes and cost-cutting measures on the pharmaceutical, hospital and insurance industries under the premise that the newly insured will translate into new customers.

But as ThinkProgress has previously reported, repealing or delaying the device tax could prove to be a bad deal for Americans if Congress does not find an effective, alternative revenue source for funding Obamacare’s vast insurance expansion. While it is important for the tax to be applied in a way that doesn’t burden patients, hospitals, and smaller manufacturers, delaying the tax simply means putting off establishing reliable funding sources for Obamacare.

$30 billion over the next decade — which the health reform law will use to extend coverage to previously uninsured Americans through the state-level health exchanges and the Medicaid expansion — isn’t going to come out of thin air. And Congress’s mercurial approach to budgeting doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in lawmakers’ ability to make difficult fiscal decisions. Since the health reform law already imposes taxes on wealthier Americans and consumers who purchase top-of-the-line insurance plans, Congress will either have to get creative or get on board with raising more Obamacare revenue to avoid raising the cost of Americans’ health care.

The Republican-led House has already voted to repeal the device tax.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) today released a new study highlighting the devastating effect that raising the Medicare eligibility age would have on America’s seniors.

CAP’s study finds that if lawmakers were to raise the eligibility age to 67, as many as 5.4 million 65- and 66-year-olds would have to search for alternative coverage sources — either by postponing retirement, enrolling in an individual plan on one of Obamacare’s statewide insurance exchanges, or qualifying for Medicaid. This dynamic alone will drive up all Americans’ costs by making existing insurance pools older, sicker, and costlier to treat.

The report further estimates that while the federal government would save a net $5.7 billion, raising the eligibility age would end up costing states, employers, and Americans an added $11.4 billion in health care spending. Worse still, seniors living in GOP-run states that have very high concentrations of poor, elderly Americans yet have refused to take part in Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would be hit hardest by the eligibility hike, and as many as 435,000 seniors could end up uninsured by 2021 if lawmakers end up following through on the proposal:

Unfortunately, GOP governors have been digging in their heels against health care reform by refusing to take part in Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Just last week, while announcing that South Dakota would not be expanding its Medicaid program, Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) dismissed the plight of poor, uninsured Americans off-hand, saying, “I want to stress that: these are able-bodied adults. They’re not disabled; we already cover the disabled. They’re not children; we already cover children. These are adults — all of them.” While it is certainly true that these poor Americans — who must make ends meet on less than $12,000 per year — are “adults,” Daugaard’s assurance that they are able-bodied is dubious.

Raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 is fundamentally un-serious entitlement “reform.” It’s the kind of proposal that sounds logical — after all, it’s true that Americans are living longer on average — and makes for a quick and easy political pitch. But a brief dive into its mechanics and consequences shows it for what it really is: a shoddy political deal that ends up costing double what it saves by shifting the cost of health care from the federal government onto states, employers, and Americans’ premiums — all while doing absolutely nothing to address the actual roots of America’s skyrocketing health spending.

New York City and Los Angeles, along with a string of smaller cities, are finally seeing their childhood obesity rates drop for the first time. The decline, though modest, has shocked researchers who have watched the obesity rate in children steadily climb for 30 years. Los Angeles’ rate has dropped 3 percent, while New York and Philadelphia both reported declines around 5 percent.

About 12.5 million children under 20 are obese, and the rate has tripled since 1980. Childhood obesity problems are usually concentrated in metropolitan areas, prompting several cities to launch anti-obesity advertising campaigns. Others have gone farther; Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I-NY) recently banned the sale of sugary drinks above 16 ounces. First Lady Michelle Obama has made childhood obesity her personal cause, coming under fire from Republicans and conservative commentators for her efforts to reform school lunch programs and promote healthy eating habits. Along with city policies, nonprofit groups have been working to get more fresh produce in urban corner stores and promote urban agriculture initiatives.

It is not clear why the rate is dropping or which, if any, of these measures have had an impact. However, all of the cities that are now seeing declines enacted anti-obesity policies several years ago. The most promising data comes from Philadelphia, which has introduced snack guidelines as well as removed sugary drinks and deep fryers from school cafeterias over the past decade:

Individual efforts like one-time exercise programs have rarely produced results. Researchers say that it will take a broad set of policies applied systematically to effectively reverse the trend, a conclusion underscored by an Institute of Medicine report released in May.[...]

Some experts note that the current declines, concentrated among higher income, mostly white populations, are still not benefiting many minority children. For example, when New York City measured children in kindergarten through eighth grade from 2007 to 2011, the number of white children who were obese dropped by 12.5 percent, while the number of obese black children dropped by 1.9 percent.

But Philadelphia, which has the biggest share of residents living in poverty of the nation’s 10 largest cities, stands out because its decline was most pronounced among minorities. Obesity among 120,000 public school students measured between 2006 and 2010 declined by 8 percent among black boys and by 7 percent among Hispanic girls, compared with a 0.8 percent decline for white girls and a 6.8 percent decline for white boys.

Philadelphia’s measured success could inspire other cities to start experimenting with obesity reduction policies. These policies could help shift the currently untenable status quo. If the state of American health remains the same, the number of children with type 2 diabetes is projected to rise 50 percent by 2050, while children who are already struggling with weight problems are far more likely to suffer from heart disease and stroke as adults.

Our guest blogger is Erik Stegman, Manager of the Half in Ten campaign for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

As the last window of opportunity to pass a fully-inclusive Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization comes close to shutting in the final days of the 112th Congress, many are wondering why Republican House leadership, particularly Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), are so opposed to the provisions protecting Native American women on tribal reservations. Other Republican leaders — including Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA), John Kline (R-MN), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Tom Cole (R-OK), and Patrick McHenry (R-NC) — have proposed a reasonable compromise that protects Native women, but it puts them at odds with the Majority Leader.

With the Issa compromise on the table and backed by several House Committee chairs, what are Republicans like Cantor still so concerned about that they’re willing to hold up the landmark law that funds services, strengthens law enforcement for domestic violence, and increases accountability for offenders?

Here’s everything you need to know about the GOP’s opposition to new protections for Native women on tribal lands:

1. Non-Native men will continue to receive a jurisdictional free pass for abusing Native women:

In response to the epidemic rates of domestic violence against Native women on reservations, the Department of Justice issued a legislative proposal that would restore Tribes’ ability to prosecute misdemeanor crimes of domestic and dating violence committed by non-Natives against Native women. This proposal also requires that the non-Native offender either live or work on the reservation and be in an existing relationship with the victim. DOJ statistics show that 3 out of 5 Native women had been assaulted by their intimate partners and 56 percent of American Indian women have non-Indian husbands.

Today on Indian reservations, the local governments don’t have the ability to respond to domestic violence crimes in their community if the perpetrator isn’t Native. Without this ability, non-Native offenders often go unpunished on tribal land because the only ones who can bring them to justice are federal prosecutors who are often hundreds of miles away and lack local resources to properly investigate and prosecute these crimes. The result, according to a recent National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded report, the offenders become emboldened, and the violence escalates to rape and in some cases homicide. On some Indian reservations, the homicide rate of Native women is 10 times the national average.

2. Republicans are more concerned with Non- Native perpetrators than Native victims:

So why do some Republicans like Cantor still have issues with a well-reasoned, narrowly-scoped DOJ proposal to reduce violence against Native women on reservations? An unbalanced concern for the rights non-Native men accused of these crimes. Even though the current Senate version of VAWA includes a full set of constitutional protections for suspects of abuse, including due-process rights and a right to counsel, Cantor and other Republicans continue to stall the VAWA Reauthorization because of baseless constitutional concerns for those accused of abusing Native women.

In the spirit of compromise within their own caucus, Issa and his colleagues proposed a powerful extra protection for defendants in their bill last week: a new right to remove the case to a federal court if the defendant’s rights are violated by a local tribal court. Although advocates for Native women would prefer to see the Senate version passed, this compromise is a reasonable way to get a deal done and improve the system of justice on reservations. It will clarify that all persons who commit a crime of domestic or dating violence on an Indian reservation will be arrested and held accountable, regardless of their race.

3. Local tribal law enforcement is more responsive to Native women:

The Senate version of VAWA would end jurisdictional black holes that give non-Native men a free pass to abuse Native women and evade justice. It would provide local tribal law enforcement with the much-needed ability to investigate and prosecute crimes against Native women in their own communities, just as other state and local authorities do for other victims in the country. Prosecuting these crimes requires sensitive and time-consuming work with family and community members. Tribal prosecutors are down the street on the reservation and work closely with the tribal police who respond to these crimes. Restoring local control will provide the victim, the family, and the community the ability to seek responsive justice locally. There’s no reason that their ability to fully prosecute these crimes should rest on the skin color of the accused abuser.

Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack conceded on Friday that revamped school lunches will allow unlimited grains and meats, in a move to appease critics of healthier school lunch standards. Conservative critics of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act have claimed USDA standards are too stringent, pointing to some school officials’ and students’ complaints over the lunches calorie caps.

In his letter addressed to a number of senators from agricultural states, Vilsack said more “felixibility is being provided to allow more time for the development of products [...] while granting schools additional weekly menu planning options.” But he also responded to a chief criticism of the calorie caps, noting that school lunches meet only a portion of the child’s nutrition:

It is important to point out that the new school meals are designed to meet only a portion of a child’s nutritional needs over the course of the school day. This should come as no surprise — students never have and never will get all of their daily dietary needs from a single meal. School breakfasts and lunches are designed to meet roughly one-fourth and one-third, respectively, of the daily calorie needs of school children.

Since schools still must meet overall calorie caps if they serve more meat and grains, the concession might not do much to appease conservatives like Steve King (R-IA), who called Michelle Obama’s healthy lunch initiative a “misguided nanny state.” A nutritionist who fought for the healthy lunch standards said the change is minor and serves to show Congress it doesn’t need to interfere.

The school lunch standards follow the recommendations of experts at the Institute of Medicine to ensure kids have enough fruits, vegetables, and whole grain foods. But until the USDA releases its rules for vending machines and school stores, school kids can still access more than their fill of junk food.

Under President Obama’s landmark health reform law, states will institute — either on their own or with the help of the federal government — insurance exchanges that will act as virtual marketplaces where Americans can purchase health coverage. Plans on these exchanges must include benefits across ten broad “essential health benefit” categories, including preventative care, maternity care services, and prescription drug coverage. But experts are now saying that states should go beyond the federal standard and designate vision care as an essential health benefit, too.

According to Kaiser Health News, while states mandate vision benefits for children, adults are largely left to fend for themselves, perpetuating a system in which otherwise insured adults decide to forgo vision care rather than pay for crucial treatments out-of-pocket:

[R]esearchers found that more than 40 percent of people in their study lacked vision insurance. They also looked at a subgroup of about 12 percent of people in the study who reporting having glaucoma, macular degeneration, or cataracts — the three leading causes of vision loss in the U.S. About 40 percent of that group also did not have vision insurance. Yet nearly 90 percent of both groups had health insurance.

Dr. Sudha Xirasagar, who oversaw the study, said she was particularly surprised to see such a high number of people without vision insurance, particularly those with serious eye conditions.

“Lack of vision insurance impedes eye care,” Xirasagar said, which “may irrevocably affect vision.”

The researchers also found that people with vision insurance were more likely to have seen an eye doctor within the past year and were less likely to report having difficulty seeing and reading.

“You would think that people who have glaucoma and macular degeneration should be worried about their eyes and should be going and getting [care] regardless of whether they have vision insurance or not. But they don’t, which is a bad thing,” said Xirasagar.

The American Academy of Ophthamology estimates that by age 80, more than half of all Americans have cataracts, accounting for $6.8 billion in annual health spending. And as lawmakers in Washington consider raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67, more and more seniors may have to rely on Obamacare’s insurance exchanges for their care — furthering the case for vision benefits as an essential need.

Retired General Colin Powell, who served as the Secretary of State under former President George W. Bush, has joined dozens of other military leaders to call on Congress to improve abortion access for military women, particularly women who have become pregnant from rape.

Currently, the Defense Department only offers abortion services to military women when their lives are in danger, and doesn’t offer any narrow exemptions even in the cases of rape or incest — despite the fact that non-military federal employees, as well as women who are covered under federal programs like Medicaid or Medicare, have coverage for the abortion services they need in those cases. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s (D-NH) proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act — which has already passed the Senate — would correct this discrepancy by allowing the military to fund abortions for survivors of rape and incest.

In a letter to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Powell and the other military leaders came out in support of Shaheen’s amendment, pointing out that military women deserve the same access to reproductive services as federal civilian employees already have:

It has been our privilege to lead and serve alongside the brave men and women of our armed forces and we believe that they deserve the best medical care that our country can provide. We were therefore greatly disappointed to learn that, by federal statute, the Department of Defense is barred from providing insurance coverage for abortion except where a pregnant woman’s life is endangered. Unlike other current federal restrictions on abortion coverage, the military ban provides no exception for cases of rape and incest. The current policy is unfair and must be changed.

Restoring abortion coverage to our servicewomen and military family members who are survivors of rape and incest would bring the Department of Defense in line with the policy that governs other federal programs, such as Medicaid or the Federal Employee Health Benefit program. At the very least, our military women deserve the same access to care as civilian women who rely on the federal government for their health care. Our servicewomen commit their lives to defending our freedoms; Congress should respect their service and sacrifice and provide them with the same level of health care coverage it provides civilians.

Studies have shown that rates of unintended pregnancy tend to be higher among military women because their contraception use is often lower, underscoring the military’s responsibility to better address women’s full range of reproductive needs. An estimated 200,000 military women serving in active duty would gain expanded abortion access if Shaheen’s amendment is passed.

Since the House has already passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that does not include Shaheen’s amendment, the two chambers must work out a final version of the bill in committee. But Powell’s fellow Republicans may still represent a road block. Anti-choice legislators blocked a similar amendment that Shaheen introduced last year.